Is the Whole US Military Shannon thing a bit exaggerated

bonkey

true wrote:

New ones could just as easily go to Scotland or Wales, for example. There they would also have the English language and access to EC
markets etc.

Except that "could just as easily" hasn't happened to those nations who decided that their moral values weren't for sale.

As I've pointed out before, Switzerland effectively gave the US military operation the same two fingers it gives any other military operation. What was the impact of this? How devestated has the Swiss economy been by the outward flood of US money?

Not at all.

If you believe in "Could as easily" as a justification, how can you psosibly supoprt any of the US actions when they could as easily have gone disastrously wrong???

jc

bonkey

true wrote:

just give me one example.

...examples supplied by others...

true wrote:

OK, so between 1939 and 1945, while the security of the world was threatened by advancing Nazi, Italian and Japanese armies across the world, FTA69 and Victor are more concerned with the US and UK up to their necks in imperialism and torture across the globe !

More concerned?

How do you get more concerned from them actually supplying you wih the just one example you asked so much for? You asked for an example, and they gave it to you.

So, if I udnerstand right....what you're now saying is not that the US/UK/Australia have been the shining lights of the world for over 100 years, but instead that they weren't worse then the people they fought against for a 6-year stretch (give or take) some 60 years ago.

If you had just said that first, I don't think anyone would have disagreed with you.

jc

the_syco

bonkey wrote:

As I've pointed out before, Switzerland effectively gave the US military operation the same two fingers it gives any other military operation. What was the impact of this? How devestated has the Swiss economy been by the outward flood of US money?

Look at how much Switzerland depends on foreign compaines, and at how much Ireland depends on it. Ireland depends more so on it.

=-=

On a side note; I've never figured out why the US doesn't use its base in the west of England. A base which is US soil. Yep, thats right; US soil, in England.

bonkey

the_syco wrote:

Look at how much Switzerland depends on foreign compaines, and at how much Ireland depends on it. Ireland depends more so on it.

When you say "foreign" I'm assuming you mean "US" because we're talking about the economic impact that saying No to the US would have had...

So...on that assumption....

I've never claimed that Ireland didn't depend more...what I've said is that the Swiss have significant economic ties with the US, that they didn't let this sway their decision, and that there was no backlash against them.

Thus, while one can make the case that we were right to consider our economic interests, we should also acknowledge that in hindsight, if nothing more, such consideration was most probably misplaced.

On a side note; I've never figured out why the US doesn't use its base in the west of England. A base which is US soil. Yep, thats right; US soil, in England.

Menwith Hill? At a guess, the most probable reason is that it doesn't have a modern airstrip of any significance.

ionapaul

the_syco wrote:

Look at how much Switzerland depends on foreign compaines, and at how much Ireland depends on it. Ireland depends more so on it.

=-=

On a side note; I've never figured out why the US doesn't use its base in the west of England. A base which is US soil. Yep, thats right; US soil, in England.

Is it not true to say that Switzerland greatly depends on foreign inflows of cash, and actually economically benefits from its neutrality, which boosts its image as a haven of financial impartiality, where all sides' money is good and secrecy is guaranteed by law. If I were your average bloody dictator, I'd stash my cash with the rest of them, in a country where (despite laudable post 9-11 efforts to reduce money laundering) I'd feel my money was safe from outside interference. And if this is ture, the Swiss would be fools to imperil an industry that accounts for 11% of their economy and employs 100,000+.

bonkey

Is it not true to say that Switzerland greatly depends on foreign inflows of cash, and actually economically benefits from its neutrality, which boosts its image as a haven of financial impartiality, where all sides' money is good and secrecy is guaranteed by law

No, it is not true to say all of that - the last two bits not being entirely accurate.

All sides' money is not good. The Swiss have no problem freezing accounts, once it can be proven they are linked to criminal activity. What they will not do is take the side of one party in a disagreement. The US decided that Saddam - for example - was no longer a bestest buddy, and wanted him gone. Would the Swiss freeze accounts on this basis? No. Would they do so on the grounds that Saddam was an oppressive dictator who was making millions out of his nation? No. Would they freeze accounts once a money-trail linking the money back to (say) skimmnig from oil-for-food? Damn right they would.

ionapaul wrote:

And if this is ture, the Swiss would be fools to imperil an industry that accounts for 11% of their economy and employs 100,000+.

I'm guessing...but if you look at said industry, you'll probably find that the vast, vast majority of the money it makes actually comes not from oppressive dictators hiding their nest-eggs, but rather from more conventional banking and from more conventional clients.

(Again...guessing) I'd be surprised if you didn't find that corporate US generates more profit for the Swiss bank then the dictator stashes.

If thats the case...wouldn't your reasoning thus conclude that the Swiss would be fools to imperil their industry by not kowtowing to the US?

jc

ionapaul

As you mentioned earlier, their economy has seemingly not been adversely effected at all - no renaming of swiss chocolate or watches as 'hero food' or 'liberty time-tellers'!